Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.

Brigham Young University - The State of K-12 Online Learning Research: Looking Forward


Published on

Barbour, M. K. (2013, February). The state of K-12 online learning research: Looking forward. An invited presentation to the Department of Instructional Performance and Technology at Brigham Young University, Provo, UT.

Published in: Education
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

Brigham Young University - The State of K-12 Online Learning Research: Looking Forward

  1. 1. The State of K-12 OnlineLearning Research: Looking Forward Michael K. Barbour Assistant Professor Wayne State University
  2. 2. 2
  3. 3. Student LearningCavanaugh et al. (2005) FLVS students performed better on a non-mandatory assessment tool than students from the traditional classroomMcLeod et al. (2005) FLVS students performed better on an assessment of algebraic understanding than their classroom counterpartsBarbour & Mulcahy (2008) little difference in the overall performance of students based upon delivery modelBarbour & Mulcahy (2009a) no difference in student performance based upon method of course delivery
  4. 4. Customization
  5. 5. Analyzing Meta-Analyses Teacher Effects Zone of Desired EffectsDevelopmentalEffectsReverseEffects
  6. 6. K-12 Distance Education Meta-Analysis• Cavanaugh (2001) - 16 studies – +0.147 in favor of K-12 distance education• Cavanaugh et al. (2004) - 14 studies – -0.028 for K-12 distance education• Means et al. (2009) - 46 studies (5 on K-12) – +0.24 favoring online over face-to-face – +0.35 favoring blended over face-to-face*
  7. 7. Student LearningCavanaugh et FLVS students performed speculated that the virtualal., 2005 better on a non- school students who did mandatory assessment take the assessment may tool than students from have been more the traditional classroom academically motivated and naturally higher achieving studentsMcLeod et FLVS students performed results of the studental., 2005 better on an assessment performance were due to of algebraic understanding the high dropout rate in than their classroom virtual school courses counterparts
  8. 8. Student LearningKozma et al. (1998) vast majority of online students were planning to attend a four-year collegeEspinoza et al. (1999) students enrolled are mostly college boundHaughey & Muirhead (1999) preferred characteristics include the highly motivated, self-directed, self-disciplined, independent learner who could read and write well, and who also had a strong interest in or ability with technologyRoblyer & Elbaum (2000) only students with a high need to control and structure their own learning may choose distance formats freelyClark et al. (2002) online students were highly motivated, high achieving, self-directed and/or who liked to work independentlyMills (2003) typical online student was an A or B student
  9. 9. Literatureindicates K-12online learningstudents are...
  10. 10. Reality of most ora large segmentK-12 onlinelearningstudents?
  11. 11. Student Learning• “Online student scores in math, reading, & writing have been lower than scores for students statewide over the last 3 years.” (Colorado, 2006)• “Online student scores on statewide achievement tests are consistently 14 to 26 percentage points below state averages for reading, writing and math over the past four years.” (Colorado, 2011)• “Virtual charter school pupils’ median scores on the mathematics section of the Wisconsin Knowledge and Concepts Examination were almost always lower than statewide medians during the 2005-06 and 2006-07 school years.” (Wisconsin, 2010)• “Compared with all students statewide, full-time online students had significantly lower proficiency rates on the math.” (Minnesota, 2011)• During both years [2008-09 & 2009-10], full-time online students enrolled in grades 4-8 made about half as much progress in math, on average, as other students in the same grade. (Minnesota, 2011)
  12. 12. Are students really learning?
  13. 13. Does online learning = high quality?
  14. 14. Hattie - Results of Interest• Programmed instruction (d=0.24)• Individualized instruction (d=0.23)• Student control over learning (d=0.04)• Second and third chance programs (d=0.50)• Computer assisted instruction (d=0.37)• Decreasing disruptive behavior (d=0.34)• Class size (d=0.21)• Charter schools (d=0.20)• Web-based learning (d=0.18)• Home-school programs (d=0.16)• Teacher training (d=0.11)• Teacher subject matter knowledge (d=0.09)• Distance education (d=0.09) 14
  15. 15. What’s This Really About???
  16. 16. Better Research is Needed toDefine the Parameters of Effective K-12 Online Learning
  17. 17. YourQuestions andComments
  18. 18. Assistant Professor Wayne State University, USA http://www.michaelbarbour.com